1
   

IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:04 pm
Setanta wrote:
okie wrote:
. . . but to label the war as based on a lie is over the top and you guys know it.


I know nothing of the kind, and the war was based on a willful, knowing lie.


Ramen
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:10 pm
Re: IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .
Setanta wrote:
What do you think the consequences would be?

Do you think the Shrub could pull it off?

If not, why?
Compared to Rich, a Libby pardon would be easy to get away with. Edgar's right. His popularity couldn't sink much lower anyway; so I'd look forward to a Libby Pardon... with no consequences.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:14 pm
Getting back to Scooter: the shrub needs to decide what his memoirs should be titled.

Let's see: I'm a Commander Guy: I'm the Decider, I'm the Education President, I'm the Explainer; I'm a War President.

Gosh, too much information, even for The Decider. With Scooter, he might like the sound of: I'm a Pardon Guy.

Yeppers, he'll do it.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:42 pm
I'm a Decider... is that a Neil Diamond song?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:52 pm
Could be, not sure.

Then there are........

Smoker

Joker

Midnight Toker

Laura's Clown

And the list goes on.....
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 09:56 am
I notice nobody is addressing my point about Hillary's statements in the debate about her participation in "the lie" by voting for the authorization to go to war based on information sources including other than George Bush, and that we are safer now than in 2001.

If Bush is such a failure as all of you guys claim, how could he have planted all of his lies into the CIA, all the other politicians, and many of the foreign intelligence services as well? The guy must be a genius to do that in the short amount of time he had in office.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:06 am
I sense that the president is feeling the surge of an impunity wave. I think Gonzales survives and Libby gets pardoned and he smirks after each.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:36 am
okie wrote:
I notice nobody is addressing my point about Hillary's statements in the debate...

Maybe because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:45 am
okie wrote:
I notice nobody is addressing my point about Hillary's statements in the debate about her participation in "the lie" by voting for the authorization to go to war based on information sources including other than George Bush, and that we are safer now than in 2001.


Fer chrissake, what the hell do you think my response was, chopped liver. Jesus that's dense. As for being safer than we were in 2001, that is so far out in the Twilight Zone it's incredible.

Ask the GIs in Iraq how safe they are.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:48 am
okie wrote:
If Bush is such a failure as all of you guys claim, how could he have planted all of his lies into the CIA, all the other politicians, and many of the foreign intelligence services as well? The guy must be a genius to do that in the short amount of time he had in office.


According to the CIA, they told him it was horsey poop--and no one here has claimed that he "planted" anything "in the CIA." Foreign intelligence services rather quickly discounted the yellow cake story, which was dredged up by Italian intelligence services, and even they wouldn't say they knew it for a fact. As for how long he had been in office, i've pointed out again and again that the PNAC had a plan to invade Iraq long before he was elected. They just needed to make up an excuse.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:00 pm
Setanta wrote:
As for being safer than we were in 2001, that is so far out in the Twilight Zone it's incredible.

Ask the GIs in Iraq how safe they are.
That was Hillary's response, nonetheless... and asking the GIs in Iraq how safe we are is a nonsensical statement.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:14 pm
So you claim, O'Bill. Do you contend that they ceased to be Amerians when they went overseas. Do you claim that no one is attacking them because they are Americans and it's easier to get at them there than it is here?

I find your post nonsensical, O'Bill.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:20 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
I notice nobody is addressing my point about Hillary's statements in the debate...

Maybe because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:26 pm
Setanta wrote:
So you claim, O'Bill. Do you contend that they ceased to be Amerians when they went overseas. Do you claim that no one is attacking them because they are Americans and it's easier to get at them there than it is here?
I made no such claims. The simple fact is; a random GI, by virtue of being a GI, is no expert on National Security, and tapping him to elucidate whether or not we are safer is an obvious example of Argumentum ad misericordiam
Setanta wrote:
I find your post nonsensical, O'Bill.
Laughing 2 factual assertions in a single concise sentence hardly qualifies as nonsensical.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 01:27 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
I notice nobody is addressing my point about Hillary's statements in the debate...

Maybe because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic?

If you would follow the posts, you would know that this Libby thing is part of the entire case whereby liberals claim the war was based on a lie. The "lie" argument is a wedge or an angle played as part of the effort to nail the entire administration, mainly Cheney and Bush. I responded to a post that highlighted the war as the big lie. Joseph Wilson's trip was part of that effort to build the case of the war being a lie. I am here to place some context to the reality of it, not the Democrats spin that has unfortunately gained traction. And Hillary's statements as recently as last week in the debate, as a leader of her party are highly pertinent in dispelling the Democrat spin to this entire framework of issues. Unfortunately, the press is clueless and has not picked up on this.

All of this points out that Wilson was a political operative. He obtained no new intelligence. This is the whole point of this entire fiasco.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 01:36 pm
Roxxxanne, No matter how much evidence/facts are presented that Bush lied us into war is useless against the neocons like okie; he's one of those Bush supporters in the now 29% who continue to claim Bush is doing a good job as president. They can't see their own demise from reality.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 01:46 pm
Where did I say Bush is doing a good job? I do not support many of his policies. He has done a decent job on some things, not so well on others, but he is still better than the alternative offered us in the last election.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 01:58 pm
But there's really no way to know that now, is there?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 02:12 pm
okie wrote:
Where did I say Bush is doing a good job? I do not support many of his policies. He has done a decent job on some things, not so well on others, but he is still better than the alternative offered us in the last election.


Hollow assertion with zero evidence other than prejudicial opinion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 02:13 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Setanta wrote:
So you claim, O'Bill. Do you contend that they ceased to be Amerians when they went overseas. Do you claim that no one is attacking them because they are Americans and it's easier to get at them there than it is here?
I made no such claims. The simple fact is; a random GI, by virtue of being a GI, is no expert on National Security, and tapping him to elucidate whether or not we are safer is an obvious example of Argumentum ad misericordiam
Setanta wrote:
I find your post nonsensical, O'Bill.
Laughing 2 factual assertions in a single concise sentence hardly qualifies as nonsensical.


Your assertions were not factual, nor was i using argumentum ad misericorciam. I was not appealing to anyone's pity, i was pointing out that those who hate America, and who are willing to take the risk, can go to Iraq to kill Americans. That is good evidence that this war has not lessened the risk to Americans from fanatical Muslim terrorism.

However, i am far more amused by your claim to have made factual "assertions."

[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/assertion][b]Answers-dot-com[/b][/url] wrote:
assertion n.

1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. (Answers-dot-com uses the American Heritage Dictionary for their source.)


There is no such thing of a factual assertion. Certainly you can assert that your claims are factual, but that will not make it so. It only becomes "factual" when you provide incontrovertible proof of your statements. Finally, i did not either claim that a GIs are expert on national security nor did i appeal to pity on behalf of them. So your response was neither factual, nor was it relevant. It was a non sequitur.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:42:05